Tuesday, October 07, 2014

Kudlow: 'Subsidizing Non-Work' Hobbles Labor Market

by JASmius

Yes, there is that:

"We still can't seem to stop the hemorrhaging of people dropping out of the labor force," asserts Larry Kudlow, the CNBC[CCP] senior contributor and syndicated host of "The Larry Kudlow Show" on Cumulus Radio.

During an appearance on "The Steve Malzberg Show" on Newsmax TV, Kudlow made it clear that he isn't among the many economists who raved over the [phonier-than-a-three-dollar-bill-]stronger-than-expected jobs report for September, which was released by the government Friday.

Kudlow noted that the labor-force participation rate fell to a 36-year low of 62.7% during the month.

Baby boomers' retirement explains some of that, he said. "But a lot of it is the government subsidizing non-work. People at the margin who might grab a job have walked away because the government benefits are quite substantial."

Eligibility for these benefits has been expanded in the Bush and Obama administrations, Kudlow said. "So if you pay people not to work, they're going to be awfully picky in taking a job. And what we're seeing is they'd rather not work. That's plaguing this whole story.

"The welfare state has run amok, in Kudlow's eyes. "Don't get me wrong; I'm in favor of a safety net," he said. "But what we have now is food stamps, welfare, disability insurance, and a variety of other things, such as unemployment compensation. We've gone beyond the safety net."



Indeed.  None of for which, by the way, I am personally eligible, because I made the mistake of scrimping and saving against the proverbial rainy day, in anticipation of the present deluge in which I would otherwise be drowning.  Well, all except unemployment compensation, which expired four months ago in any case.  But it's not as if there are any jobs for which to forsake all that federal boodle.  So don't worry, sports fans, I'll grasp poverty's gilded ring eventually - and so will you.  It is that for which "We, The People" twice voted, after all, and doubtless will continue to do so.

Speaking of which, Mohamed El-Erian appears to consider voting itself futile:


While next month's congressional elections are a distant thought for many investors, Washington's economic policy paralysis will continue whatever the results, says Mohamed El-Erian, former CEO of Pimco.

"Regardless of the election outcome, there are only limited prospects for bold economic leadership out of Capitol Hill," he writes in the Financial Times.

What kind of "bold economic leadership out of Capitol Hill," Mohamed?

"The main question is not whether the mid-terms will change the gridlock in Washington that undermines economic growth, accentuates inequalities and holds back prosperity. It is whether companies and individuals can decouple even more forcefully from yet another do-little Congress." [emphasis added]

Note that statist undercurrent: If Congress doesn't left-legislate, "prosperity" is "impossible".  The Horn Of Plenty isn't the industrious, inventive, and ingenious American people themselves through the natural "invisible hand" of laissez faire capitalism, oh heavens, no; it is "bold economic leadership out of Capitol Hill".  Because that "bold economic leadership out of Capitol Hill" that we received from 2007 through 2010 was so devastatingly effective in bequeathing us an avalanche of "prosperity".  Remind me which party controlled Capitol Hill back then?

And of course, which party is "holding back prosperity"?  Yep, the usual suspects:

If Republicans take over [the Senate], the gulf between Congress and the White House might even widen, he writes, as they "shift their attention to the prospects for gaining control of the White House in the 2016 presidential elections."

"In sum, there is little chance of change in the polarization and dysfunction paralyzing Congress," El-Erian notes.

Because an "efficient" Congress is precisely what the Framers of the Constitution intended, right?  And that can only happen when the party that isn't trying to "gain control of the White House in the 2016 presidential elections" is calling the shots, right?  Because they gave us the current tsunami of "prosperity," right?

Wrong.

But cheer up, Mohamed.  After all, it's not as if Congress has any power, or your "god, lord, messiah, and savior" isn't the REAL repository of federal power.  Magical, universal wealth beyond the dreams of avarice is just a pen and phone away, right?

Right?

No comments: